Here is What Arafat turned Down During Camp David Accords

[Phoenall]

Serious answer: No. Last IQ test I took I scored 118.

I've been on several negotiation skills courses in "corporate world" and one of the first things they teach you in any negotiation is, that if the offer is not made in writing, it is not an offer, just "hot air" and therefore Arafat rejected nothing. If the offer was made in writing, can you supply a link to the document in question?

LOL, that is your answer. I am going off the assumption you are retarded!

Clearly you have never been involved in high level negotiations.

Another factor that Arafat had to consider is, could the Israeli side deliver or be trusted to deliver on their promises?

Once it was in writing, signed by all parties and lodged with the UN Israel had to stick to the letter of the agreement or face UN brokered sanctions. Not even the USA veto could stop the sanctions from being put in place, as the UN would act without their input.
More to the point could the Israelis trust the Palestinians to deliver their side of the agreement and would the UN take action against the Palestinians if they didn't

 

[aris2chat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcSYUItDdZc

Yes, that is pretty much the same information that I had previously as well. However, I did take a look at this article:

2000 Camp David Summit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and after reading it, if some of the terms concerning "sovereignty" and "custodianship" over some of the areas are as I read them, well, I just don't know.

In my heart of hearts I still think that for Arafat, the fact that the conflict had to be declared over _might_ still have had something to do with it.

Well, it had to be an ongoing struggle for the Pals until they had all the land and even now that is what they strive for in talk, songs, education.

Among other things, the existence of statehood would lead to audits of accounts for palestinian money both by the palestinians and the world donors.
Even if Arafat had signed, that would not mean all other non-PLO groups would accept or those in the camps. Had it been put to a vote and it passed the same thing would apply. Some would not accept to recognize Israel's right to exist and seem to exterminate them.
Singing would not necessarily mean peace and likely have lead to Arafat being assassinated.
Abbas has the same risk. Those on the extreme fringe would keep fighting and bombing in any way possible no matter that the palestinian state would be held responsible.
The teaching and spreading of hate has to end and a clear explanation of what peace would look like and how it would benefit the palestinian socially and financially would need to be stressed. For the most part peace would better the standard of living.
It would also mean the end of UN camps. The camps would become palestine's responsibility as would the refugees in camps outside.
The difficulty of disarming the palestinians, or the PLO termination, the ending of grafts/bakshish (officially).

 

[teddyearp]

Yes, that is pretty much the same information that I had previously as well. However, I did take a look at this article:

2000 Camp David Summit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and after reading it, if some of the terms concerning "sovereignty" and "custodianship" over some of the areas are as I read them, well, I just don't know.

In my heart of hearts I still think that for Arafat, the fact that the conflict had to be declared over _might_ still have had something to do with it.

Well, it had to be an ongoing struggle for the Pals until they had all the land and even now that is what they strive for in talk, songs, education.

Among other things, the existence of statehood would lead to audits of accounts for palestinian money both by the palestinians and the world donors.
Even if Arafat had signed, that would not mean all other non-PLO groups would accept or those in the camps. Had it been put to a vote and it passed the same thing would apply. Some would not accept to recognize Israel's right to exist and seem to exterminate them.
Singing would not necessarily mean peace and likely have lead to Arafat being assassinated.
Abbas has the same risk. Those on the extreme fringe would keep fighting and bombing in any way possible no matter that the palestinian state would be held responsible.
The teaching and spreading of hate has to end and a clear explanation of what peace would look like and how it would benefit the palestinian socially and financially would need to be stressed. For the most part peace would better the standard of living.
It would also mean the end of UN camps. The camps would become palestine's responsibility as would the refugees in camps outside.
The difficulty of disarming the palestinians, or the PLO termination, the ending of grafts/bakshish (officially).

Very well put aris. Although what I bolded is out of order, I think all the Palestinians have to look at for their social and financial benefits of peace would be Israeli society today. Israel is on the cutting edge (and has been) in several ways. Look to the failed greenhouses in Gaza. Look at their high tech enterprises, etc.

If only somehow the Palestinians could do what Israel did early on and fold their 'extreme fringe' organizations into the main security force under one and only one government, then maybe peace can be achieved.